The question is, why would they be illegal? Hollow points are no less "humane" than ball ammunition. I don't see the point in banning hollow point 9mm, but allowing .308 ball ammunition. Once you've accepted that you're shooting at something to kill it, hollow point ammunition is more likely to kill it humanely rather than leaving it to bleed out slowly.

I think the Hague convention ban was based on the misunderstanding that hollow point bullets are somehow explosive or fragmenting. All they do is make bigger holes, just like bigger bullets do.

I am curious what Tsur, Darien, DaXiang, and Lord Frith think of Silencers?

How would you feel about removing their Class III status?

I don't have strong feelings about it, but I slightly lean towards opposing.

I don't see the need for silencers (suppressors before someone jumps down my throat) other than hunting. And even then, I think the advantages aren't all that impressive. It seems like most hunters handle their recoil w/o too much difficulty. And most seem fine with ear protection. And as far as confusing the animal, how much more of an advantage do you need?

Outside of hunting I don't know why you would even want one. At the range you have ear protection. Not practical for CCW. During a home invasion I want to make as much noise as possible. I'm guessing someone here probably has a good reason that I'm not aware of.

But I'm not aware any criminal epidemic of suppressor use that makes me want to ban them or anything like that.

There's not really any reason for a current-production firearm to go up in value. Why would anyone purchase something used for more, when they could get the same exact firearm new for less? It's simple supply and demand.

Finally! Someone who doesn't believe guns are gold.

People collect things that they don't expect to go up in value all the time.

I am curious what Tsur, Darien, DaXiang, and Lord Frith think of Silencers?

How would you feel about removing their Class III status?

I don't have strong feelings about it, but I slightly lean towards opposing.

I don't see the need for silencers (suppressors before someone jumps down my throat) other than hunting. And even then, I think the advantages aren't all that impressive. It seems like most hunters handle their recoil w/o too much difficulty. And most seem fine with ear protection. And as far as confusing the animal, how much more of an advantage do you need?

Outside of hunting I don't know why you would even want one. At the range you have ear protection. Not practical for CCW. During a home invasion I want to make as much noise as possible. I'm guessing someone here probably has a good reason that I'm not aware of.

But I'm not aware any criminal epidemic of suppressor use that makes me want to ban them or anything like that.

Really? I was not aware if that. All the hunters I know are huge safety freaks. They always wear ear protection. I think they even wear sunscreen.

Maybe it has to do with where you are or more importantly WHAT you are hunting. Hunters around here don't tend to wear ear protection either as it makes it harder to hear things you are hunting or other people approaching and putting them in before every shot is going to lead you to missing out. Also if you are hunting dangerous game or in an area with dangerous wildlife of any sort the last thing you want to do is make it easier for something you are unaware of to harm you.

I am curious what Tsur, Darien, DaXiang, and Lord Frith think of Silencers?

How would you feel about removing their Class III status?

Couldn't care less, since under my preferred form of gun regulation you wouldn't have a gun to put the silencer on unless you had a genuine need for it, and if you can show that you can probably show why you need a silencer.

I am curious what Tsur, Darien, DaXiang, and Lord Frith think of Silencers?

How would you feel about removing their Class III status?

Couldn't care less, since under my preferred form of gun regulation you wouldn't have a gun to put the silencer on unless you had a genuine need for it, and if you can show that you can probably show why you need a silencer.

Outside of hunting I don't know why you would even want one. At the range you have ear protection.

During the recent construction boom, many new houses were built near established gun ranges, which has caused political problems when the new houseowners try to get local authorities to force the range to close.

Quote:

During a home invasion I want to make as much noise as possible.

You've probably never fired much indoors. Suffice it to say that if I ever thought I might need to shoot indoors, I'd first be donning the usual double ear protection even if my door were being kicked in. Short barreled rifles in a hallway is not easily forgotten nor fondly repeated.

Really? I was not aware if that. All the hunters I know are huge safety freaks. They always wear ear protection. I think they even wear sunscreen.

I can't imagine wearing ear protection while deer hunting; I don't know anybody who does. You usually hear them before you see them. Ideally you're only shooting once though. Birds or small game where you're shooting repeatedly might be a different story.

I don't have that many rifles. However of the two I have sold both were used (one had 4000+ down it) and I made a profit on each of them. These were arsenal AKs and I was taking advantage of the leap in value they took during the panic buy period previous to the current. At this point I have one left and plan on keeping it indefinitely. Incidentally both sales went through an FFL since I did not know these people.

@DarienLearned my lesson the hard way on sunscreen. Once you've been burned severely enough to get blisters the size of golf balls you don't want a repeat.

Really? I was not aware if that. All the hunters I know are huge safety freaks. They always wear ear protection. I think they even wear sunscreen.

I can't imagine wearing ear protection while deer hunting; I don't know anybody who does. You usually hear them before you see them. Ideally you're only shooting once though. Birds or small game where you're shooting repeatedly might be a different story.

The hunting bit for suppressors is really a mislead though. The real value for them is at shooting ranges, outdoor or indoor, but especially indoor. When hunting you are only liable to be in close proximity of a gun or two, and only for a few shots. The last time I was at a range, there were 6 of us shooting, and it wasn't even full. While we all had hearing protection on, there was definite noise pollution for the neighbors. It was nothing on the air planes flying overhead really, considering how close we were to Boeing Field/McChord and SeaTac though.

While we all had hearing protection on, there was definite noise pollution for the neighbors. It was nothing on the air planes flying overhead really, considering how close we were to Boeing Field/McChord and SeaTac though.

True, and while I'm all for the noise reduction for all involved, my sympathy for "the neighbors" in this case is extremely low. When the airport was put in, (and very likely the range, for similar reasons), those houses weren't there. The neighbors built/bought in that location knowing full well what was already there and how noisy it would be, so they have no justification to complain about any of it.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing what we can through technical means to mitigate the volume of our activities in general, because a quieter environment in general is nicer for everyone, but I don't put any stock in noise complaints from people who moved in next door to a firing range that is located along the flight corridor to an airport.

If they were not restricted I would absolutely have one on my primary home defense weapon for my sake and my family's sake. Shooting one in an enclosed space may still cause your ears to ring a bit but it's certainly better than the ear-bleeding loudness of an unsuppressed firearm. I'd want the wife on the phone with 911, not with her fingers in her ears or scrambling to find ear pro.

That's just being asinine. Make something you personally don't like as bad as possible, just to annoy people more so that they want to ban it.

Not exactly an argument on the merits...

I didn't say I was arguing on the merits. Using my rationale to ban silencers would be stupid. You asked if I would be in favor of removing the ban. I said I would not support removing the ban, for my own reasons.

Not annoying the neighbors and lowering incidental noise pollution is enough reason for suppressors.

I'm not sure I'm in favor of making guns more socially acceptable.

*shrug* Once I don't have to move every few years I'll be picking up a couple. Silly to need an extra $200 to uncle sam for each, though. Or likely one bigger, cleanable one that I can put on a common adapter for each.

And don't worry, I'll do all the making guns more socially acceptable for you.

I can't imagine wearing ear protection while deer hunting; I don't know anybody who does. You usually hear them before you see them. Ideally you're only shooting once though. Birds or small game where you're shooting repeatedly might be a different story.

Do you always hunt alone?

The guys I know hunt in a pack of 2-4. When hunting deer, the guys who aren't taking the shot wear ear plugs. When using a feeder and blind, I think everyone wears them.

If they were not restricted I would absolutely have one on my primary home defense weapon for my sake and my family's sake. Shooting one in an enclosed space may still cause your ears to ring a bit but it's certainly better than the ear-bleeding loudness of an unsuppressed firearm. I'd want the wife on the phone with 911, not with her fingers in her ears or scrambling to find ear pro.

I've never fired a weapon indoors w/o ear protection. I can only imagine how much it would suck. But I'd still want the extra decibels to alert the neighbors. I think that if a gun were double muffled by the suppressor and the house, there's a good chance the neighbors might not hear the gun fire.

I can't imagine wearing ear protection while deer hunting; I don't know anybody who does. You usually hear them before you see them. Ideally you're only shooting once though. Birds or small game where you're shooting repeatedly might be a different story.

Do you always hunt alone?

The guys I know hunt in a pack of 2-4. When hunting deer, the guys who aren't taking the shot wear ear plugs. When using a feeder and blind, I think everyone wears them.

count me in for not using ear protection when deer hunting. For the 1-2 shots you may take, it doesnt ring your ears that bad outdoors and it isnt worth not being able to hear them approach. Also, people "hunting" in the way you describe with a feeder and a blind annoy me. Its not like deer are that hard to hunt to begin with that it requires baiting them.

I am curious what Tsur, Darien, DaXiang, and Lord Frith think of Silencers?

How would you feel about removing their Class III status?

Would they make the gunfire trackers in cities less reliable?

Nope. Best I've ever heard of reduces the report by 35db off something that does 150odd db. Knocking it down to 115db is still loud enough for it to be heard over normal city noise.

I've done noise measurements near ranges and at distances of around 100 yds, I saw peak levels of about 80 dBA from shotguns and 60 dBA from pistols. A suppressor with an insertion loss of 35 dB would reduce those levels to below that of ambient day and evening city noise levels (typically 45-65 dBA), especially considering the reduction from structure shielding in a city. So if the 35 dB insertion loss figure is correct, than it's possible that suppressors could significantly reduce the effectiveness of shot-spotter type systems.

count me in for not using ear protection when deer hunting. For the 1-2 shots you may take, it doesnt ring your ears that bad outdoors and it isnt worth not being able to hear them approach. Also, people "hunting" in the way you describe with a feeder and a blind annoy me. Its not like deer are that hard to hunt to begin with that it requires baiting them.

Feeders are illegal here (and quite unsportsmanlike IMO). I'm not concerned that the one or two shots a season I take are going to cause hearing problems; heavy metal concerts took care of that already.

Interesting. From what I've read, we've had a good experience with our installation, included several times when the system altered police to gun shots that were never reported, and when the police rolled up on the scene, they've found a victim.

Interesting. From what I've read, we've had a good experience with our installation, included several times when the system altered police to gun shots that were never reported, and when the police rolled up on the scene, they've found a victim.

Interesting link, though based on the article two things in particular jumped out at me:

1. It lead to the recovery of a couple of .38s, a .40, a .22, and one sawed off shotgun. None of those would be covered by any past or proposed renewed "AWB", and the remaining one (shotgun) has been illegal for quite some time - highlighting how pointless these regulations are when it comes to reducing crime.

2. The system has a 90% false-alert rate.

In the cases where it has been of some help, that's great, but I think it's a fair question whether the cost of the system (both initial and ongoing) has been worthwhile for the return, or if that money might be more effectively spent on something else.

Not annoying the neighbors and lowering incidental noise pollution is enough reason for suppressors.

I'm not sure I'm in favor of making guns more socially acceptable.

Forget socially acceptable . . . why are you shooting off guns with neighbors in close enough proximity to get annoyed?

Granted a gunshot travels a long ways, but I have this visual in my head of you talking about silencers when you decide to do a little backyard target shooting in a residential area, which seems wildly irresponsible.

Forget socially acceptable . . . why are you shooting off guns with neighbors in close enough proximity to get annoyed?

M. Jones wrote:

Tsur wrote:

Outside of hunting I don't know why you would even want one. At the range you have ear protection.

During the recent construction boom, many new houses were built near established gun ranges, which has caused political problems when the new houseowners try to get local authorities to force the range to close.

Forget socially acceptable . . . why are you shooting off guns with neighbors in close enough proximity to get annoyed?

M. Jones wrote:

Tsur wrote:

Outside of hunting I don't know why you would even want one. At the range you have ear protection.

During the recent construction boom, many new houses were built near established gun ranges, which has caused political problems when the new houseowners try to get local authorities to force the range to close.

Makes sense. For whatever reason I thought you where talking old-school shooting tin cans off the fence out back.

In the cases where it has been of some help, that's great, but I think it's a fair question whether the cost of the system (both initial and ongoing) has been worthwhile for the return, or if that money might be more effectively spent on something else.

As with any acoustic detection system, it can be tuned to reduce the false alarms, but there is a trade-off between false-alarms and missing an actual gun firing. The decision has obviously been made that false-alarms are preferable, especially given how many gunshots aren't reported. IOW, this is a feature, not a bug. I'm not aware of any gunshots that have been missed by the system (in the areas covered by the system).

Another article that talks about the difference between the Springfield and New Haven experience (it sounds like out system is better calibrated than the NH install)

edit: to bring this back to suppressors, certainly having suppressors being in common use won't improve the reliability of shotspotter-type systems. Whether or not that is an acceptable trade-off is the question.

In the cases where it has been of some help, that's great, but I think it's a fair question whether the cost of the system (both initial and ongoing) has been worthwhile for the return, or if that money might be more effectively spent on something else.

As with any acoustic detection system, it can be tuned to reduce the false alarms, but there is a trade-off between false-alarms and missing an actual gun firing. The decision has obviously been made that false-alarms are preferable, especially given how many gunshots aren't reported. IOW, this is a feature, not a bug. I'm not aware of any gunshots that have been missed by the system (in the areas covered by the system).

Another article that talks about the difference between the Springfield and New Haven experience (it sounds like out system is better calibrated than the NH install)

Maybe, but from what I've been able to dig up in a quick search the system costs $40k-$60k year per square mile to run. So for 3 square miles and going right down the middle that's $150k/yr, on top of the nearly half a million initial cost.

That's pretty expensive for the return. How many police departments would continue to drop $150k annually on an informant that was wrong 9 times out of 10?

Heck, even the ever popular 'gun buy-backs' tend to get more than 23 guns off the street each year, and for far less money. I suppose if your city has the money to burn it doesn't hurt, but for the cost I suspect there are a lot more, smaller scale things that could be done socially that would produce greater net results.

EDIT: With respect to this system and suppressors - I hardly see it as a good argument against allowing them. Shot-spotter is already at "stopped clock" levels of accuracy, so I don't see how allowing suppressors for the general populace would make it much worse. And that's assuming criminals would bother using them anyway. Maybe they would, but it doesn't strike me as the sort of thing your average street criminal is going to bother with. It adds to bulk and reduces concealability, both of which are more likely to be concerns for them than how loud it is when they fire.